Rank-and-file police personnel have sharply criticized a federal judge, labeling them an “activist,” due to a controversial ruling perceived as stripping law enforcement of essential strategies for managing violent street demonstrations in Los Angeles.

The ruling, which has ignited widespread dissatisfaction among police forces, saw Judge Consuelo B. Marshall declare that the Los Angeles Police Department violated federal regulations by employing 40mm “less-lethal” projectile launchers during tumultuous protests in response to immigration raids executed by ICE agents in June 2025.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League’s Board of Directors, which advocates for approximately 8,700 sworn officers in the LAPD, condemned the judge for allegedly overlooking the genuine threats officers encounter while on duty.

In a scathing response, the board urged the judge to leave her “ivory tower” and observe firsthand the actions of individuals they described as “so-called peaceful protesters,” who, they claim, are causing unrest on Los Angeles streets.

“These individuals engage in violent acts such as throwing rocks, frozen water bottles, and concrete chunks at officers. They also deploy military-grade projectiles, ignite vehicles, and vandalize businesses,” the statement continued.

“Yet somehow, they are the victims.”

The 40mm launchers — which fire rubber, foam and plastic munitions — were first restricted in 2020 following their use during widespread protests after the murder of George Floyd. That earlier court order, stemming from litigation brought by Black Lives Matter activists, barred officers from targeting sensitive areas, required warnings when feasible, and limited use to situations involving immediate threats of violence.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, a 40-year veteran of the department who was appointed by Mayor Karen Bass in November 2024, warned the ruling removes a key de-escalation option.

The launcher, McDonnell said, allows officers to “maintain a safe distance from protesters, de-escalate dangerous situations, and protect the public without resorting to higher levels of force.”

“I respect that it’s hard for the public to understand some of the decisions we make,” McDonnell said. “But every member of this organization’s primary goal is to protect and serve the people of Los Angeles.”

“With that said, the LAPD will always adhere to the rule of law and continue to seek alternative tools to keep both our officers and the people of this great city safe.”

The police union, however, warned officers would now be less effective in violent confrontations and demanded the city appeal what it called a ruling based on the “mirage that violent riots were peaceful protests.”

“Shame on this judge for valuing violent rioters over the safety of law-abiding residents and police officers,” the board said.

The Office of the City Attorney, which would be responsible for appealing the ruling, did not respond to a request for comment.

On Thursday, Marshall found the city failed to take all reasonable steps to comply with a 2021 injunction and rejected arguments that violations were technical or inadvertent. She held the city in civil contempt and ordered an immediate ban on the use of the weapons for crowd control.

The judge cited multiple incidents from 2025 in which LAPD officers fired the launchers at protesters and members of the press, including a man filming police who suffered facial injuries requiring surgery, a woman shot while crouched behind a chair, and an attorney who was shot twice in the groin after asking an officer for identification.

Other cited incidents included a man struck in the back of the head while attempting to leave a protest and a registered nurse wearing a visible medical symbol who was shot while treating injured demonstrators.

The court also allowed plaintiffs to seek attorneys’ fees but stopped short of appointing an outside monitor to oversee LAPD compliance.